How can religion be evil?

731 posts / 0 new
Last post
doG's picture
AJ777

AJ777
"Isn’t your argument like science of the gaps. You have faith that science will prove what you currently believe without evidence"

Not at all. It is near impossible for you to avoid your cognitive dissonance. Atheists are open to change in belief of entirely everything they believe, as truths are revealed and validated, atheists except.. Theists never can be, because they are bound by the religious doctrine of their belief. This makes critical thinking near impossible for theists/you. This is the critical thinking you can not see that will answer your above question...pay attention. Seeing you are wanting to talk about a gods existence, I will use that as an example. Presently, theists/you, can not prove the existence of your god...nor can atheists disprove the existence of your god. However, the present stalemate with respect to absolute truth, is actually not a stalemate as you think. We can use reason to determine likeliness in these cases. In this case, god and related religious tenets, are based in the supernatural. Supernatural events and things have never occurred in human history...never validated as fact, ever. This, plus the fact that supernatural things contravign the natural physical laws of our universe, and are evidences of likeliness...and presently, for the reasons stated, the existence of god, is highly unlikely...actually near absolutely unlikely. This is why I believe that a god does not exist. No faith involved...just reason.

On a side note...this is why theists have so many deficits,and appear so ridiculous. They can not use reason to determine truth/likeliness. All they can use is faith, and truth can never be derived from faith.

Sheldon's picture
AJ777

AJ777

You claimed torturing children was in your opinion immoral. why do you think this? 

arakish's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

Since you seem incapable of answering any of our questions after we have already thoroughly answered your question in your OP: How can religion be evil? Here is my answer to my question: Is it objectively immoral to terrorize and torture children into believing the Bible?

Religion is evil because of the fear religion puts, or attempts to, put into people especially children. That is the pogrom of religion. Get children while they are between the ages of 4 to 14, when they are especially at their most vulnerable and most susceptible to cultural, traditional, and abhorrent dogmatic conditioning. Religion knows this; thus, the reason they come at children with a smiley-face and ingratiating manner, yet utilize mental rape, emotional molestation, and psychological terrorism to instill that fear into children hoping to brainwash them. In my most honest opinion, this is child abuse in any moral landscape. Basically, beginning at childhood, you are trained to react to ideas, and to reject them no matter what they are told, presented, and/or taught. Children are militantly trained to preserve the FAITH of religion regardless. They are taught to never question their beliefs which is the worst form of dishonesty. They are trained that their faith is NEVER wrong. They are conditioned to never question why they need to defend their belief at all. And the masters do this with apologetics, beguiling dialectical semantics, perverted and distorted data, emotional whiny-ass pleas, and sometimes divinely-inspired violence.

There is the answer to my question: Is it objectively immoral to terrorize and torture children into believing the Bible?

rmfr

Cognostic's picture
Religion is evil because your

Religion is evil because your God is an evil bastard. That just pretty much says it all.

arakish's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

Understanding more clearly the concept of God in the Christian worldview at least helps here.

Yes, it does. I have a thorough understanding of the worldview of many, many religions. I spent 30 years studying other religions by traveling to other countries to get first hand experience of those religions. Not just by what I read. My main focus was into the two greatest lynchpins of the father of all Abrahamic religions: the Noahacian Flood Myth and The Exodus That Went Nowhere. Both of which NEVER happened. And there is only one concept anyone who utilizes critical thinking, logical and deductive reasoning, and rational and analytical thought: Any god dreamed up by humans has the morality of a childish, spoiled brat. That is to say, none.

Since God is unchanging, perfect in all ways, necessarily good and just, otherwise He would not be God, His moral laws are unchanging and perfect.

"God is unchanging..." LMAOWF. Almost fell out of my chair on that one. One way a comedian once described the "god" of the Bible is so damned true: The God of the Old Testament can be seen as the drunken abusive father, where the God of the New Testament can be seen as the pot smoking hippy. First God is the creator of all things. Then God muders all but eight of his "children." Then God chooses his people. Then God enslaves them in Egypt. Then God commands his people to commit wholesale genocidal ethnic cleansings. Then God enslaves them in Babylon. Then God brings them back to commit more wholesale genocidal ethnic cleansings. And on and on until God makes himself human to sacrifice itself to itself in order to appease its anger.

Bullshit! Your Sky Faerie is just that, a faerie. And I shall never believe it even has an inkling chance of existing until I see OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. And do not give us your bullshit about your Sky Faerie existing "outside of time and space." Do you even realize what this means? Without space, it cannot exist. Without time, it cannot exist. Even if your Sky Faerie exists outside this realm, its actions within this realm would leave evidence. Where is that evidence?

So in the Christian view they are objective.

No. They are still subjective. Even if your Sky Faerie is supposedly responsible for instilling a moral code, it is still SUBJECTIVE to your Sky Faerie's whims and actually becomes tyrannical totalitarian dictated edicts. NOT OBJECTIVE.

Isn’t your argument like science of the gaps. You have faith that science will prove what you currently believe without evidence.

Nope. No gaps. What I believe can be substantiated by OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Nothing you believe can be substantiated. NOTHING. And if it is something I do not possess any knowledge of, my answer is, "I do not know." Why are you theists so damned adamant about admitting you do not know? Religious Absolutists barely read one book and think they know everything. I have read over 10,000 books and still feel I know nothing. That is the major difference between theists and atheists, especially scientist atheists.

Here is something I believe. We have OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that the Yellowstone Caldera has exploded in a cycle of approximately once every 650Ka to 800Ka. Currently, it has been about 680Ka since the last major eruption (explosion). Thus, we are within the time range of another major eruption. This eruption could occur next week. Then again, it may not happen for another 100Ka. All we can do is to collect and analyze data of its current behavior pattern. We cannot predict when the next eruption may happen. We can only guess if it seems to be heading towards the next major eruption. That is my belief. As said, it is substantiated with OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

Which of your beliefs can you substantiate?

rmfr

AJ777's picture
Can one conduct a scientific

Can one conduct a scientific experiment with the goal of determining if Christopher Columbus was a real person?

Rickdiculous's picture
Can one accept that

Can one accept that Christopher Columbus was God because there was a book that said so?

Can one accept that Christopher Columbus jizzed gold because there was a book that said so?

Can one accept that Christopher Columbus had 17 penises because there was a book that said so?

See how Rickdiculous everything sounds?

If this creature from imagination that you call "God" existed in history, just like Christopher Columbus, as a human being then there is absolutely no debate. But the moment you claim that this God's density is less than water's or the God is positively buoyant, we need more than just faith.

AJ777's picture
“If this creature from

“If this creature from imagination that you call "God" existed in history, just like Christopher Columbus, as a human being then there is absolutely no debate.”

I agree, skeptics and non Christian scholars do not dispute the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

arakish's picture
AJ777: "I agree, skeptics and

AJ777: "I agree, skeptics and non Christian scholars do not dispute the existence of Jesus of Nazareth."

I do. There is no evidence Jesus ever existed. There is far more evidence that Christopher Columbus existed.

rmfr

Cognostic's picture
AJ777: Another remarkably

AJ777: Another remarkably inane assertion. There is little to no evidence at all that Jesus ever existed.

A Growing Number of Scholars Are Questioning the Historical Existence of Jesus
Who disputes the Existence of Jesus?
Zealot by Reza Aslan

Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All by David Fitzgerald

How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman.

Richard Carrier in his 600 page monograph: On the Historicity of Jesus,

https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/a-growing-number-of-scholars-are-quest...

Did Historical Jesus Really Exist? The Evidence Just Doesn’t Add Up.
https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/12/did-historical-jesus-really-exist...

Are you so burred in belief that you don't have a clue. Thousands of articles and hundreds of books are out there challenging the historicity of Jesus. Biblical Scholars attempting to defend the Historical Jesus have reduced him to a man, A homeless wandering preacher of his time whom people created stories about. THAT'S IT AND NOTHING MORE.

Talyyn's picture
@Cognostic,

@Cognostic,

Wouah, the idea of Jesus being a tool of psychological warfare never occured to me, but it would be very Roman to do it.

AJ777's picture
Thousands also believe the

Thousands also believe the earth is flat and can point to internet and other articles to prove their points.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

Thousands also believe the earth is flat and can point to internet and other articles to prove their points.

Millions also point at a contradictory book they have hardly read and poseurs like Ken Ham and WL Craig to 'prove' their points. It does not mean any part of their collective delusions are real.

BTW there is not a shred of contemporary evidence for a jesus figure as described in the gospels. None.

arakish's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

Thousands also believe the earth is flat and can point to internet and other articles to prove their points.

But those articles DO NOT prove the Earth is flat. Those articles are exactly what you are doing in the this thread. Making unsubstantiated presupposed assumptions without any OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

You should be ashamed of yourself for lying as you have done in this thread. Absolutely ashamed.

Remember that list? How to spot a Religious Absolutist:

  1. They LIE without ever thinking about the veracity of their statement.
  2. They LIE without ever providing any evidence of their statement.
  3. They LIE by believing inexorably everything they state.
  4. They LIE by being absolute in their statements (either I believe you or I am worthless scum).
  5. They LIE by using beguiling dialectical semantics.
  6. They LIE by using distorted and perveted data.
  7. They LIE by creating irrational excuses.
  8. They LIE by utilizing whiney-ass pleas.
  9. They LIE by not realizing why they need to defend their beliefs.
  10. They LIE by utilizing presupposed conclusions with no evidence.
  11. They LIE by making accusations they never apologize for even when they are proven wrong.
  12. They LIE by changing the subject.
  13. They LIE by taking text out of context and twisting and perverting said text to fit their presupposed confirmation bias.
  14. They LIE by shifting the burden of proof.

As said, you should be ashamed because you have matched every item on this list. In fact, you actually forced adding of a new just because of what you have done in this thread. The new one I had add, you may ask? Number 13.

rmfr

Cognostic's picture
And most of them are

And most of them are Christians as they get the information from the bible. AJ77 Just a case of the kettle calling the horse black.

You are the one that used the ad populum fallacy, not I. I merely pointed out that you were obviously, empirically, and demonstrably WRONG. All you are attempting to do now is shift the blame. Do you know how to argue honestly? Why not admit that your assertion was wrong. I cited my sources to prove there IS NO CONSENSUS among biblical scholars. You are demonstrably WRONG.

LogicFTW's picture
@AJ777

@AJ777
I actually wish Columbus was not a real person based on historical record of the guy (well the history books printed OUTSIDE the US.)

Google something like: "the truth about christopher columbus" and be prepared to realize the american "hero" you learned about in grade school (if you went to a public school here in the US) is definitely no hero you or anyone should idolize.

So I have zero need to devise or conduct a scientific experiment with the goal of determining if christopher columbus was a real person.

_____________

But yes I see where you are going with this, and I agree, it is difficult to devise an experiment proving anyone that is written about, is a real person. Especially if it was 500+ years ago. This does not prove sciences failure, but the flaw(s) in historical record. This highlights all the same issues that heavily burdens all the claims in the various bibles/holy books.

You would do well to realize just like it would be difficult to figure out if someone written about 500 years ago is difficult to verify and prove, that someone 2000 years ago would be that much more difficult to truly verify. And raising from the dead is a lot ALOT bigger claim then christopher columbus sailed west from europe expecting India (it was well known at the time the earth was a globe and not flat back then.)

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

CyberLN's picture
I completely agree, Logic.

I completely agree, Logic. Give John Leguizamo’s “Latin History for Morons” a watch. Some entertaining history and information about Columbus and his cronies.

LogicFTW's picture
@CyberLN

@CyberLN

Will do. Thanks for the suggestion!

arakish's picture
Yeah Columbus was nasty

Yeah Columbus was nasty asshole. Kind of says a lot about the American government creating a brand new national holiday dedicated to him and his cronies. And the only reason they did was because the federal workers whined and complained about October being the only month they do not get a holiday off. Fucking America. Nothing but a bunch of dumb ass retards elected by dumb ass retards.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
You claimed it was immoral to

You claimed it was immoral to torture children, why do you think this?

Talyyn's picture
@Sheldon,

@Sheldon,

You know he will not answer, I keep being disappointed by theists here.

Sheldon's picture
Yeah I knew, as soon as I saw

Yeah I knew, as soon as I saw his claim I knew he would realise what he'd done the minute I asked him the question. I'm not disappointed though, to apologists it's an endless fight to pedal their vapid wares, to me something either is credible or it is not, and every time I read what apologists have there is no rational tangible objective basis for their belief. Such obvious dishonesty from AJ777 just hits home that they are lying to themselves first and foremost. IF they won't be honest with themselves then I can hardly expect them to be honest in a forum such as this.

AJ777's spiel was just too rigid, it seemed too coached to be his own thinking, that's why he didn't immediately spot his error and made the claim. If it is your own reasoning you understand it more fully, and immediately he introduced his own opinion, and the question implied his error he clammed up.

What I'll never understand is what they can think not answering achieves, but then again none of it is rational anyway.

Algebe's picture
@AJ777: Can one conduct a

@AJ777: Can one conduct a scientific experiment with the goal of determining if Christopher Columbus was a real person?

We know he had descendants, because there are records of them suing the Spanish crown for a bigger share of New World gold. So with a combination of genealogy and genetics, it might be possible to trace him. However, that would depend on verification of the remains in his tomb in Seville. His body was relocated several times.

Without genetics and genealogy , we'd have to rely on documentary sources, of which there are many.

The effects of Columbus' visits to the New World can certainly be confirmed scientifically from the impacts on Native American populations due to introduced diseases.

I'm guessing this question will lead to "If we can't confirm Columbus, how we can argue that we can't confirm Jesus?". As with any historical figure, our knowledge of their existence has to be based on a balanced assessment of contemporary evidence and our knowledge of the consequences of their actions. There are strong cases for Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, and Christopher Columbus. Not so much for Moses David, Solomon, and Jesus.

Nyarlathotep's picture
AJ777 - Can one conduct a

AJ777 - Can one conduct a scientific experiment with the goal of determining if Christopher Columbus was a real person?

That isn't quite how it is done. Material thought to be contemporary writings about the person in question, can be used to make predictions that other contemporary writings about the person will exist.

Diotrephes's picture
AJ777,

AJ777,

Have you had enough time to think about your answer to this? =

"The original question had to do with how can religion be evil? So, based on what you know about various religions do you consider all of them to be good and without fault?"

The old John Brezzy character never did answer most questions either.

AJ777's picture
I view the religion of

I view the religion of atheism/naturalism to be a failure in logic and contrary to reality. The nature of truth only allows for one true religion.

arakish's picture
And where is your OBJECTIVE

And where is your OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE? The only true religion for mankind is that which can be substantiated. Science Bitches! It works.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
You cant invoke logic when

You can't invoke logic when you can't even get basic word definitions correct. Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. Religion is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal deity or deities. The two things are logical negations of each other.

You just make yourself look foolish, and dishonest when you use such mendacious wordplay.

Not to mention that you're erroneously trying to equate naturalism with atheism, and they're not remotely the same thing. One could disbelieve naturalism and still be an atheist, in fact that would describe many Buddhists for example. So again you're being deliberately disingenuous. Almost as if you're trolling again.

AJ777, you claimed it was your opinion that torturing children was immoral, why do you think this?

The more you dodge squirm and evade this the clearer it becomes to everyone you've realised the contradiction between the claim and your unevidenced claim that morality is objective. Especially since the bible is filled with accounts of your deity causing suffering to, and murdering babies and children. Stories YOU claim are true, and form the basis for objective morality.

Evasion won't help now. You just appear thoroughly dishonest about your beliefs.

Diotrephes's picture
AJ777,

AJ777,

I'm going to conclude that you think all religions are good and without fault regardless of what their practices are or have been.

Talyyn's picture
@AJ777

@AJ777

Atheism is not a religion. Are you being ignorant or dishonest?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.